Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about advice he received from the Council concerning his son’s eligibility for the ‘fair access protocol’ because any lack of clarity in the advice has not caused sufficient injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that misleading advice from the Council about eligibility for the fair access protocol led directly to his decision to withdraw his son, B, from school. He complains his son missed a term of education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have carefully considered everything Mr X said, although I have not included every detail here. I have included as few details as possible to protect the anonymity of Mr X and his son.
6. Mr X’s son, B, is a secondary school pupil.
7. Mr X wanted a new school for B. He emailed the Council for advice. The Council responded on 10 November 2025. Mr X says he made a “basic logical inference” of the “unavoidable corollary” of information in the Council’s email and withdrew his son from school the same day. He believed this would make his son eligible for the fair access protocol, a process for allocating school places to unplaced and vulnerable children.
8. Later the same week, the Council contacted Mr X to say he had misunderstood. The Council offered B a place at a new school.
9. Unhappy with the advice he had received, he made a formal complaint to the Council. He later “conditionally accepted” the new school place, subject to the Council agreeing to provide transport. The Council agreed to provide transport and gave a start date less than a month after Mr X had withdrawn B from school.
10. The Council accepted that its advice on 10 November could have been clearer but did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. Unhappy with the outcome, he complained to us.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any lack of clarity in the 10 November advice offered by the Council has not caused sufficient injustice to justify an investigation.
12. The Council offered a new school place within a week of Mr X withdrawing his son from school. This compares favourably with the timescales for the fair access protocol. I note the fair access panel meets fortnightly.
13. We cannot investigate complaints about B’s school and any education he missed before the Council became involved.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman